The Most “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” Trump Argument Ever – Trump’s case for his immunity in the Jan. 6 prosecution is particularly galling.
by vulcan_on_earth
The Most “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” Trump Argument Ever – Trump’s case for his immunity in the Jan. 6 prosecution is particularly galling.
by vulcan_on_earth
10 comments
So, the man who whines about a two tiered justice system wants a two tiered justice system, just for himself. Isn’t that special?
May his house of cards estopple
Majority of Americans to Trump “just go away”
Sooo king clown says a president can do whatever they while want while president. Be careful what you wish for. That means Biden could lock up the orange idiot simply because he felt like it.
> ” … Because the Constitution specifies that only “the Party convicted” by trial in the Senate may be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,” … it presupposes that a President who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution.
I can be tried and prosecuted for murder. But because I was acquitted of murder, you can’t charge me with anything anymore.
Makes perfect sense…..
If you’re a criminal.
I want some of what agent oranges attorneys are smoking.
So……. The insanity defense
His strategy is so obvious. Push all the trials back as far as possible. Win the 2024 election. Then say since he’s president he can only be tried by congress, who of course won’t do anything. He might also try pardoning himself, who knows with our ridiculous supreme court they might actually allow it. He knows he’s screwed in court, so his only hope is winning (or stealing) the election next year.
Not gonna lie, if I was a judge, I would deliberately use the hypothetical situation of Biden breaking the law as president to explain what his logic would look like if someone else argued it and note that, if Trump WANTS to go down that line of argument, then he and the entirety of congress would have to accept that the impeachment proceedings against Biden aren’t allowed to happen because Biden has complete immunity.
Then say bluntly “as it can be confidently demonstrated from his own rhetoric that the defendant would never accept this argument if the current president made it, I feel I must raise the question of why the defendant believes the court should accept his argument if he clearly would be unwilling to accept his own argument if it was used against him. Unless the defendant can demonstrate an articulate answer to this that shows that his argument is not purely self-serving, but has consistent logic within it that justifies this clear discrepancy and is rooted within good faith interpretations of facts, law and basic reality, then the court sees absolutely no reason to indulge the defendant on this point and strongly cautions him and his legal team against continuing to pursue this point, as it is clearly not being made in good faith and the court sees little reason to waste time arguing about a point that the defendant themselves would only employ to their own benefit, facts and logic be damned, and never to that of others.”
Basically the relevant part of the constitution is just making it clear that it’s not double jeopardy to be impeached and criminally convicted for the same crime. Which also means you can be acquitted by one and convicted by the other.
It’s similar to how double jeopardy works between states. If you commit the same crime in two states, they both can prosecute you for it. (Or state and federal). Even if you’re acquitted by one, the other can still go after you.